The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear energy - a game changer? > Comments

Nuclear energy - a game changer? : Comments

By Phil Sawyer, published 23/7/2010

Whichever political party dares to play the nuclear energy card could win the election.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Julia fiddles while coal burns.

Nuclear power is the elephant in the climate change room. The liberals don't feel strong enough to want to introduce it and Julia Gillard is too dependent on the Greens to ever risk mentioning it. JG has also tasted the backlash from the higher cost of living that the renewable s means, so her solution is to put together a group of 150 citizens for a 2 year talkfest at the end of which there is still likely to be no action.

Consultation, discussion, review, etc are all methods for simply delaying actually having to do something unpopular.

The choices are:
1 - do nothing but seem concerned and "about" to do something ad infinitum,
2 - Spend hugely on renewables, drastically increase the cost of living, and cripple the economy,
3 - Take the unpopular choice of nuclear power, and actually reduce the CO2 output, with minimal impact on cost of living and the economy.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 23 July 2010 10:07:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't know about your third option Shadow Minister...... "3 - Take the unpopular choice of nuclear power, and actually reduce the CO2 output, with minimal impact on cost of living and the economy."

Nuclear power plants are ridiculously expensive to build and impossibly expensive to de-commission at the end of their relatively short life span. Also, would I be right in saying that high grade ore to fuel them is becoming more and more scarce?

Add to that the cost of fighting to obtain a suitable location (not in my back yard minister), endless committees, plus the political backlash and the necessary advertising by the Government of the day required to justify their nuclear stance and it all adds up to a hell of a lot of money, money that will be a burden on the cost of living one way or another, since it's the ordinary citizen that eventually pays through the nose for everything the Government does.
Posted by Aime, Friday, 23 July 2010 10:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Always good to read Phil Sawyer!
But Phil, Julia Gillard is a politician not a leader and so I doubt we will get such a sensible, if controversial initiative, from her.
Posted by Jennifer, Friday, 23 July 2010 11:21:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets inject a few facts (as unpleasant as they are) into this theoretical debate.

1. Wind power systems create infrasound that can cause health effects to locals. These effects often culminate in there being a public backlash against their building in anything but remote areas. This then causes the issue of how to transport the power to built-up areas.

2. "Hot Rocks" systems are limited in their power generating capabilities. The heat in these rocks is caused by magma flowing close to these areas, but close may be several kilometres underneath. The flow of coolant needs to be carefully regulated so as to maintain heat levels at an operational level. Lower coolant flow equals lower power production. There is also the problem of possible ground water contamination.

3. Solar systems use high quantities of fossil fuels and energy to produce. The raw materials need to be mined, extensively refined and manufactured into the final product. A solar system may have to be in operation several years to recoup the CO2 emissions of its own creation.

4. A thermonuclear fusion reaction is unsustainable without the use of vast quantities of energy. While there have been leaps and bounds in the field a working model is still just a pipe dream.

5. While nuclear is dangerous and a PR nightmare, its input/output is the best of any of the non-renewable options. A reactor may only use tons of uranium while a coal plant will use thousands of tons.

6. If we keep on doing what we are doing we will get what we have always got.
Posted by Arthur N, Friday, 23 July 2010 11:26:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime, that “Nuclear power plants are ridiculously expensive to build and impossibly expensive to de-commission at the end of their relatively short life span. Also, would I be right in saying that high grade ore to fuel them is becoming more and more scarce?”

These are all valid concerns but may be based upon “Myth conceptions”.

The best research I’ve found to address your points are in David Mackay’s book “Without Hot Air”. Google it and go to the “Nuclear?” chapter, pages 162-176. It’s free if you wish to download the whole book or just browse it.

Let us know if this answers your questions.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 23 July 2010 11:31:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime,

I see your reading is mostly "green" based.

France without oil, gas or coal, was forced to follow the nuclear route, and brought the populace on board. Australia has generations worth of coal, and so can afford to endlessly debate, whilst continuing to pollute.

France with more than 80% nuclear electricity has one of the lowest costs of power in Europe and exports a significant amount to those that have chosen the "renewable" route such as Germany.

Nuclear plants are expensive to build, but the running costs are extremely low meaning that only coal, gas or hydro are cheaper than nuclear. If one chooses to completely re-mediate the site it is expensive, however, if one intends to continue generating power, an upgrade to a newer reactor is a fraction of the cost.

If you read the IAEA reports (not the green fiction) there is sufficient uranium for new generation reactors for millennia.

Nuclear is by far the safest generating method, suffering the lowest fatality rate per GWhr generated even including Chernobyl.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 23 July 2010 11:35:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My opinions, whether based on "myth conceptions" (Spin doc) or "Green based" (Shadow Minister) doesn't really matter since another 'opinion' of mine is that we, as a species, have already populated the planet to the point near extinction anyway.

The world's population was probably sustainable at 1.8 billion, but not at the ever increasing rates seen since I was born in the mid 50's. The fact that the population has reached close to 7 billion has only been possible due to cheap and abundant energy, namely oil. The highest production peak of oil was back in mid 2008 and it's doubtful that peak will ever be breached. Just look at what happens when an oil company is forced to drill in ever increasingly difficult places? We get wars in foreign countries and ecological disasters in deep water. All the time citizens of countries such as India and China strive to match the lifestyle of established Westernised economies.

It's game over. Without cheap, abundant energy, we won't have the time or energy to build your nuclear power plants in time to avert the energy short-fall anyway. And I can add to oil depletion fish stocks, soil, fresh water, iron ore and grains, the latter of which are being used in increasing quantities to fuel cats because of oil depletion.

No doubt some of you will call me a pessimist, but remember, a pessimist is only an optimist that's had their eyes pried open!
Posted by Aime, Friday, 23 July 2010 12:12:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I had a good laugh at my second line too, which should have read "cars" not "cats" :-)
Posted by Aime, Friday, 23 July 2010 12:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime is right. Nuclear is horrendously expensive. According to Time, price estimates for a nuclear reactor in Florida came in between US$ 12 and US$ 18 billion. To build one in Australia would cost even more as yoy would have to add in the infrastructure to process the fuel and as I understand it the US are currently keeping their costs down by using weapons grade Uranium as part of their nuclear reduction program (another option we don't have).

Think of the opportunity costs. Geothermal is amongst the cheapest sources of energy and you don't have to pay for the fuel. Moreover, it is a well proven technology. $12b would more than pay for exploration and development of geothermal resources.

By the way, Arthur N a small correction to your comments about geothermal. Some geothermal, notably New Zealand and Iceland is derived from volcanic heat. In Tuscany, not known for its volcanoes, they have the oldest geothermal power in the world based on latent heat in the earth and a viable option for Australia for shallow geothermal. "Hot dry rock" geothermal works on the radioactive decay in the rocks (usually granite) rather than magma.
Posted by Loxton, Friday, 23 July 2010 1:09:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The implication of the RET is there is something magical about renewables. What we really want is low carbon at an affordable short term and long cost. Unfortunately the RET will guarantee neither since it relies on 'clean' producers selling additional Renewable Energy Certificates (currently worth about $40 per megawatt hour) to 'dirty' producers which means we pay twice for energy. Since there is no CO2 cap there is little chance that renewables will actually reduce emissions. Meeting the 2020 RET of 45,000 gigawatt hours will require wind and solar to expand four-fold in the next decade, hydro being maxed out and wave and geothermal going nowhere.

In my opinion we should junk the RET and go back to mandatory CO2 cuts. The trouble is that coal fired electricity is so cheap without externalised costs. If nuclear got the same RECs, capital grants or feed-in tariffs enjoyed by commercial and residential wind and solar the economics would be far superior to coal. Of course we would pay anyway via higher taxes or power bills. As in the US there should be a nuclear waste disposal fund of a fraction of a cent per kilowatt hour. Note the domestic coal fired electricity sector spews out 200 million tonnes of CO2 every year and doesn't pay a cent.

It seems that putting a price on carbon is beyond the abilities of our current political system though some of us voted for it. Therefore the parties must give a leg up to all other forms of low carbon energy wind, solar, carbon capture, nuclear etc and see who competes best. If the idiotic REC system is the best they can come up with then I agree with the author they'll need to include nuclear.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 23 July 2010 1:24:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Solar systems use high quantities of fossil fuels and energy to produce. The raw materials need to be mined, extensively refined and manufactured into the final product. A solar system may have to be in operation several years to recoup the CO2 emissions of its own creation."
Just like absolutely every other product in our society- let alone the components required to generate electricity. Please reprint your 'argument' post by including this statement in every other energy source, or kindly retract that asinine statement.

Topic-
However, cost-wise, pretty straight-forward;

A nuclear plant's cost would be comparable to a coal-fired plant or other form of combustion-energy plant, due to both needing similar maintenance and infrastructure- not to mention a supply of mined resources and water for cooling.
However, nuclear increases the costs by adding the need for a location and logistics for disposal, and additional safeguards to contain, and those to decontaminate, the radiation at every step of the cycle, and increased safety and security costs and measures.
Also the longetivity of the need to pay to maintain quarantine procedures for the time after (including the disposal section).

Also, every nuclear plant is a custom job- each is different because it needs to be designed specifically for an (appropriate) site. That means that many parts and components must be custom-designed.

Solar panels, on the other hand, require simple circuitry and no moving parts nor plumbing, and thus are very easy and cheap to assemble, and can be mass-produced.

For the election- if you think either candidate is doing themselves a favor by advocating a nuclear plant, you're dreaming. It would be electoral suicide (especially when somebody asks where the plant is to be located.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 23 July 2010 3:06:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, King Hazza, you are the only poster so far that has mentioned "security", an issue currently dramatised by the bellicosity and sabre-rattling in the general direction of that promoter of the Peaceful Atom, Iran. I do wish they would trade their nuclear fuel in for windmills and solar cells.

Perhaps the Israelis could negotiate a solar electricity deal the Iranians can't refuse. I would thank them profusely.

Some Israelis, a few at least, are aware of the nuclear terrorism issue. See:

http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Health-implications-radiological-terrorism-Perspectives/19561972.html#fullText

It says, among other things,

"Constructing a nuclear fission weapon requires high-level expertise, substantial facilities, and lots of money. All three of which would be difficult, although not impossible, for a terrorist group to pull off without state support.[1]

However, terrorists could carry out potential mass destruction without sophisticated weaponry by targeting nuclear facilities using conventional bombs or hijacked aircrafts."

Regarding a nuclear-armed Australia, the debate is certainly in the minds of some folks: see

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2010/05/nuclear-weapons-for-australia-ongoing.html

Dr Dennis Jensen MP gets a mention here - Electoral Division of Tangney (WA). Dr Dennis Jensen MP. Party: Liberal Party of Australia. Not to be confused with Dennis the Menace, I hope.

I ask you - how are our neighbours expected to know whether we are fair dinkum about not wanting nuclear weapons if we embark down the path, through nuclear electricity, toward nuclear weapons? All it takes is a little mistrust to encourage the sort of scepticism (justified or not) corrodes international relations. Not everyone in the region can be guaranteed to be as polite toward us as we are toward the Israelis, regarding their alleged nuclear arsenal - but then, they are on the other side of the world, aren't they?

It just seems like good sense to me to say "not in my back yard" to nuclear electricity.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Friday, 23 July 2010 4:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime,

Are you proposing genocide as a solution to global warming? :)

Loxton,

Hot rocks geothermal has yet to produce a single commercially viable plant in the world. It also uses vast quantities of fresh water (3x that of a nuclear or coal fired station)

The US builds the most expensive nuclear power stations because each one is individually designed and approved. The French system of building standard units comes in at less than 1/2 the cost of the Americans.

King Hazza,

Hazelwood power station burns about 85000 tonnes of coal a day in 8 boilers/ turbines compared to a single closed cycle nuclear unit. The vast quantities of coal handling, ash, abrasion and corrosion mean the maintenance and running costs are orders of magnitude higher.

The unit cost of uranium is a fraction of the cost of coal.

Sir Vivor,

The modern containment vessels can withstand a direct strike by an Airbus.

Multiple bombs would have to take out various levels of safety protection before there would be danger to the public.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 23 July 2010 4:24:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister:

I like you,
You're funny.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Friday, 23 July 2010 5:59:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do all of you supporters of nuclear power for Australia support it for all countries? Countries like Iran for instance? If not why not?

Where do you propose a nuclear reactor could be sited in Australia? Given it needs water, reasonable access to the consumers and a safe location. Whos backyard do you say it should be built in?

What are the risks of a worst case scenario and how many people could be effected? Is this a risk worth taking and do we take similar type risks already or do we reject other things of a similar risk level?

These are the specifics always glossed over by the delusional proponents of nuclear power and the very things that will derail any attempt to introduce nuclear power to Australia.
Posted by mikk, Saturday, 24 July 2010 6:56:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have the good fortune to reside in a province that got enough reactors built, before the oil and gas shills hit their stride, that this past Tuesday morning they were providing 62.6 percent of the electricity. The risks are in theory much less than those of alternative electricity providers, and in practice they have been zero.
Posted by GRLCowan, Saturday, 24 July 2010 7:12:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suggest that some of the commenters here go to the Australian website of Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University - www.bravenewclimate.com

Not only will you get some facts on climate change but also some on nuclear energy and there are some good links as well.

A genuine attempt at unbiased seeking after information may result in more realistic thinking.
Posted by Manorina, Saturday, 24 July 2010 7:39:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The mad Greens would block nuclear power in the Senate.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 24 July 2010 10:09:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Which would imply Shadow that the notable difference of cost would be
-Price/quantity needed of coal vs uranium/plutonium
-Any difference in heat- therefore water and maintenance
-How much it would cost to increase and implement the containment and decontamination measures.

Vivor- never actually thought of that. I would have assumed that our neighbours would not assume we are increasing our arms (unless a hugely anti-Indonesia candidate steps up from a rock somewhere)- though I'd assume you would be right that we would not be improving relations in a time we are punishing Iran for doing the exact same thing we are trying.

Also, although the destruction of a nuclear bomb far outweighs that of a power facility, the leaking radiation (and possibly radiated cooling waters) is nothing to be sneezed out- and it will become the new target for terrorists.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 24 July 2010 10:10:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia's politicians are not alone in thinking that wind and solar need special treatment not given to nuclear power. In the UK nuclear producers want loan guarantees and a decent carbon price. They do not want an ongoing per-unit subsidy like renewables. Yet in the UK coalition government the energy minister Chris Huhne from the LDP says nuclear shall get nothing while wind and solar get feed-in tariffs. Germany is similar with its expensive but still minor renewables. They have slapped a special tax on nuclear power while it is being forcibly phased out and there are plans to build a number of new brown coal burning power stations.

King Hazza if you favour solar just imagine the difficulty of finding the power for aluminium smelters that run all night. Then millions of people get up at daybreak for showers, tea and toast. So far energy storage hasn't cracked that level of performance. We don't need to bury much nuclear waste just yet as it is small volume and much of it can be reprocessed. As to the small amount left well much of the original uranium came out of deep under the outback and the end products can go back there.
Posted by Taswegian, Saturday, 24 July 2010 5:54:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Greens, with their doom-and-gloom alarmism, are actually nuclear's best chance. The greater they portray the threat of global catastrophe through CO2 emissions, the more relatively sensible the nuclear option seems. (It's deliciously dialectical - they're digging their own graves on this one).

As for Labor in power, don't be surprised if PM Gillard, post-election, moves in the nuclear direction. Labor can do certain things more easily in terms of public response than the Liberals. We've seen it with NAPLAN. She stared down the reactionary teacher union bosses, threatening to call in scabs, and they crumbled. Imagine the response were Abbott to try the same in power?

As the price of fossil fuels becomes greater as they become scarcer due to rapidly increasing demand from China and India (and eventually Africa), the nuclear option will become more acceptable to more people as it will make better economic sense.

In my opinion, it's only a medium term 'solution', though. What's needed is a vastly increased investment in research and development in the momentous field of nuclear fusion. There's a great opportunity to a brave party leader to commit to this area, as part of an international effort. Of course, there should still be R&D into renewables, including solar, but, hey, let's think BIG - despite the Gillard/Abbott/Brown commitment to thinking and aiming small.

And by the way, opposition to nuclear energy is not a left-wing position. Communists always supported it and, when I joined the party in the late 1960s, it was still committed to the 'peaceful atom'. Things changed with the decline of Marxism and the rise of the mish-mash best described as pseudo-leftism during the 1980s and 1990s. Unfortunately, that reactionary outlook is still widely described as 'left-wing'
Posted by byork, Saturday, 24 July 2010 6:12:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian, I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer you;

But to answer both of your questions:

1- for industry (high-power consumers) you would merely have to continually implement solar collectors/renewables in general to each reduce the amount of energy required by a non-renewable source, until either the renewables fill up the power supply entirely or, failing that, the infrastructure would rely on a greatly minimized amount of non-renewable energy as backup only- thus reducing the amount of them needed to run and the amount of pollution they generate. This is simple mathematics taught to young children involving blocks, my friend.

2- actually you are flat out wrong about existing solar systems failing to substantiate hot water and energy needs of a household, entirely. Houses (including mine) rely on solar heaters for hot water, and houses that rely on PV solar panels are generating an excess of their energy consumption levels. So my answer to that would be- solar panels would do this.

In other words, households are completely off the list- which means using any further renewable infrastructure to assist power of only hospitals, industrial and commercial structures (and relying on any other forms for whatever's left).
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 24 July 2010 7:36:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Byork,

Fusion energy has been "just around the corner" for some several decades now. My opinion is that it is pie in the sky. An article I read back in the early 1980's, in PNAS if I correctly recall, suggested that the number of nonlinear variables that have to be controlled to achieve reliable net energy production is unachievable in the near future.

Meanwhile, we have smart grids to develop, efficiency measures which have been successfully implemented, and solar technologies for direct, low-grade heating, centralised power generation and photovoltaic electricity production. Not to mention wind energy.

Someone above mentioned infrasound as a problem with wind generators, and I will have to Google that one. I was not aware that infrasound was a human health issue, although I can imagine that elephants in Australia could be affected. Still, best I do the possibility justice - - -

And I suggest you google "Rocky Mountain Institute". Amory Lovins has probably done more to address the energy needs of the developed world than any dozen thermonuclear physicists.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Saturday, 24 July 2010 10:14:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor, the beauty of nuclear fusion is that it can generate all of humanity's energy needs for thousands of years, without CO2 emissions. It's a source that would allow us to further develop production and, under the right social system, eradicate poverty and other nasties - and have lots of fun.

Under capitalism, it remains hopelessly, scandalously, under-funded. Existing capital has no interest in undermining itself and governments have generally ignored it - with a few exceptions where it is none the less grossly underfunded.

Needless to say, now that all of Australia's main parties - the Greens, Labor, and Liberals - are committed to a small Australia, and to small thinking, it is unlikely the reluctance to think about nuclear fusion will change without public pressure.

We might start by demanding an end to government funding of climate change entrepreneurs and transfer those multi-millions of dollars to a fusion project, which would be part of an international project. No use waiting for the capitalists to work on this one - it will require government initiative.

The nuclear fusion process has none of the problems arising from nuclear fission: no long-life waste, no potential value to weapons production (in magnetic confinement fusion), it is fueled by deuterium (abundant in the oceans) and no possibility of catastrophic accidents.

Read more about fusion, and the excruciatingly slow advances in its R&D here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power and here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-other-nuclear-energy/2006/07/02/1151778807198.html

The good news is that in 2006, the US, Russia and the EU agreed to build the world's first nuclear fussion reactor
Posted by byork, Sunday, 25 July 2010 7:55:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Byork,

re your comment,
"The good news is that in 2006, the US, Russia and the EU agreed to build the world's first nuclear fussion reactor"

It may also interest you that on the SBS news last night, there was an item on how, in July 1975, Soviet cosmonauts and American Astronauts shook hands in space. See
http://en.rian.ru/science/20100721/159896958.html

I would like to add that you have missed my points entirely.

See Rocky Mountain Institute's "Forget Nuclear" article, at:
http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=1802&file=ForgetNuclear.doc&title=Forget+Nuclear

What applies to nuclear electricity also applies to fusion electricity, in spades. Neither can hope to compete with cogeneration and end use efficiency measures.

Not to mention the points I made above.

But I'm glad that the Ruskis and the Yanks shook hands in Space.
The world's a better place for that, don't you think?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Sunday, 25 July 2010 10:10:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Ivor, I would take you more seriously had you not included wind power along with solar. Wind power is a costly and inefficient joke, as this article originally published in The Guardian reveals: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4527

Solar cannot, as yet, provide primary base load power to run industry. But it's not about running industry, it's about extending it, and also extending human creativity and productivty in the interests of a better world. Thinking BIG rather than small. Nuclear fusion is by far the best for that - it basically solves the energy needs of all future generations on this planet. And once it is harnessed, who knows which other planets we humans may colonise?

Fission is a good medium-term response - as the Europeans are showing - but the future is with fusion!

It seems that your position is to stop R&D into it. How reactionary.
Posted by byork, Sunday, 25 July 2010 10:30:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor, just like solar, & wind, co-generation is another joke. Alternate fuel works, [inefficiently] when you have a constant supply of the same fuel, eg, wood chips, but burning variable waste has never worked anywhere, when the truth is told.

It is just the sort of garbage we get from pie in the sky dreamers, who have no idea of the chemistry & physics controlling combustion processes,

You must have forgotten the Rocky Point co-generation power house. It did produce some quite expensive electricity burning be-gas, the residue of the cane used in the sugar mill, but that was only the for 5 to 7 months of the harvesting season.

The fact they could not get it to run with any other feed stock made that bit of expensive power horrendously expensively on an annual cost basis.

It was sold off for peanuts, at great cost to the Qld tax payer, & I believe was turned into scrap. The same fate that befell the hugely expensive Spanish wave power fiasco.

Why is it that it is always the totally impractical people, with no idea of the problems that promote these processes? I suppose I know the answer, but I'd better not post it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 25 July 2010 12:15:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HasBeen and Byork,

I admire your obstinacy, but not your judgement.Time, tide, economics and opinion are against you. But of course I would say something like that, if I really am a reactionary.

As for nuclear electricity, great for centrally planned economies, but not so good for capitalist paradises, unless the proponents are into socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor - - -

Both of you ought to read the RMI article - far better than your links, Byork.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Sunday, 25 July 2010 1:30:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hardly an argument, Sir Vivor. I would think the growing public acceptance of nuclear power (thank you greenies for facilitating this with your alarmism about CO2) and the new countries that are planning to go nuclear, and the existing nations with a nuclear power component who intend expanding it - (go Obama, yay!) - prove you wrong in the claim that everything is against nuclear.

Sorry I cannot continue in this thread.
Posted by byork, Sunday, 25 July 2010 1:45:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk,

I am fully in favour of nuclear power for Iran. What I don't support is its weapons program.

South Africa has a nuclear energy program that runs without any enrichment, and any other country is free to emulate including Australia.

Sir Vivor,

Considering that CO2 emissions are about 6% higher since Labor was elected, and projected to rise by about a further 10% by 2012, with a further 12 coal fired power stations on the books, the push for renewable energy appears to be coping with only a portion of the increased demand.

Australia's emissions are set to increase dramatically by 2020, and without nuclear, there is no chance what so ever of reducing emissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

France is the only industrialised country in the world to have emissions lower today than in 1990, and has emissions per capita nearly a quarter of Australia's.

Emissions can be reduced, but there is only one proven method of doing it. All other method can contribute, but cannot do it on their own.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 26 July 2010 10:12:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister, a clarification. I was not saying that "hot dry rocks" have been proven, rather is was correcting the view that the heat comes from magma which it does not. Other forms of geothermal are well proven and operate around the world, including Birdsville here in Australia.

I am not sure where you get the figures on water usage. I would be interested to see your source for this claim.

Byork - "the beauty of nuclear fusion is that it can generate all of humanity's energy needs for thousands of years" - billions in fact. We already have one, it is called the sun. Far better to work on solar thermal and pv to use what we already have than invest money duplicating what nature already provides.

"Solar cannot, as yet, provide primary base load power to run industry." Who says it has to? As I have pointed out many times, we have other options. Solar and wind tend to dominate the renewables discussion on these pages, but mini-hydro, geothermal, sewer gas and biomass are examples of other options. You should also not forget energy efficiency measures and smart grids that optimise what we already have.
Posted by Loxton, Monday, 26 July 2010 1:51:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only site that deals with water loss in detail is the company running the test site in Germany.

The information is available on the Australian site, but the water losses are only mentioned in passing, but don't differ significantly per cycle from the German plant.

The German plant has easy access to large quantities of fresh water, the Australian site does not. This is a game changer in itself.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 9:19:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM

Perhaps I needed to be more specific with my question. I am aware of at least three types of geothermal energy of which hot dry rocks is only one. My question related to your comment that geothermal uses three times as much water as nuclear. I find this difficult to believe and was wondering where you got your data.
Posted by Loxton, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 3:49:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loxton, you are simply being obtuse.

There is only one type of geothermal energy in Aus that can make more than a tiny scratch on CO2 emissions.

The hot rocks requires water to be injected at high pressure into fractures in the granite, and retrieved at a higher temperature from another well.

The losses per cycle are between 10-15% per cycle in extracting the heat. So even when the generation is air cooled, the losses are significant, especially given the comparatively low temperature and energy generated per cycle.

Nuclear and coal power stations are also capable of air cooling thus using almost no water. Kendal power station near Johannesburg does this for about 3GW of generating capacity.

This is generally mentioned in the footnotes, but can be found on the Geodynamics website or the German Landau website.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 10:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loxton,

What I find so amusing about SM is his myopic fixation on electricity generation. This is a handicap not suffered by Amory Lovins, of www.rmi.org, one of the world's most respected energy policy analysts.

By all means fossick through the footnotes on SM's biblical references, but don't forget to have a look at the wikipedia article on geothermal energy. It makes points which resonate with the article I mentioned above,

http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=1802&file=ForgetNuclear.doc&title=Forget+Nuclear

about cogeneration and direct supply of electricity and low grade heat.

Energy lost through transmission from a centralised power station is energy and money wasted. That is why efficiency measures, "negawatts", are the clever way to assure electricity availability.

Thinking outside the electricity box, the Wikipedia article notes that, for low-grade heat applications,

"Direct heating is far more efficient than electricity generation and places less demanding temperature requirements on the heat resource. Heat may come from co-generation via a geothermal electrical plant or from smaller wells or heat exchangers buried in shallow ground. As a result, geothermal heating is economic at many more sites than geothermal electricity generation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 8:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor,

Piped hot water has been used for many years in Europe for house heating in winter, supplied from geothermal, gas and coal power stations.

Due to the high energy consumption of pumping water this is restricted to houses relatively close to the source of heat.

Given the generally warm climate in Aus and the large distances from the heat sources, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 10:14:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

Why not read the Rocky Mountain Institute material I have linked, above, instead of posting irrelevant and ludicrous comments?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 12:11:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone going with the Sawyer strategy has my vote in a heartbeat. But in the absence of that, where to put my first preference? The "climate change is crap" Liberals, Julia Gillard's "let's abdicate our responsibilities to randomly selected giant focus groups" ALP, or the hopelessly anti-nuclear and economically innumerate Greens?

Actually, I think I could come at the giant focus group idea IF the government committed BEFORE the assembly to implement EVERY policy it comes up with. Then we'd see how fair dinkum they are about listening to the people.
Posted by Mark Duffett, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 12:36:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor,

The polemic titled "forget Nuclear" from the RMI is a prime example of using worst case scenarios and extrapolating them to the entire industry.

The plant in Finland is the exception that proves the rule. The plant is being built by Areva who has recently completed several almost identical reactors in France on time and within budget. The plant being commissioned by the Finnish government has been plagued by continuous politically motivated design and scope changes from the "green" contingent leading to budget and time blow outs.

While there is cheap coal to provide power and political delaying tactics there is no serious motivation to tackle climate change. When there is, and the reality of high energy costs sinks in, the political landscape will change from necessity as it did in France.

As for ludicrous and irrelevant, your hot water comment was a corker. What next, How to fend off radio waves by wearing a tin hat?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 29 July 2010 7:58:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's OK, Shadow Minister, you just go on focusing on the trees, instead of grasping the nature of the forest.

I advise you to have a look at the graphs in the Rocky Mountain Institute article, and note the electricity costs attributed to transmission losses, in particular. Do you really think I would advocate piping hot water any extended distance, for any reason? The heat loss is significant at the household plumbing level, let alone scaled up toward centralised industrial or community heating.

But back to the forest:
Efficiency, co-generation and market solutions based on appropriate applications of appropriate technology are going to continue to outpreform nuclear electricity,
in spite of the billions of dollars of taxpayers subsidies,
in spite of the limited liability for disasters,
in spite of intrepid grassroots publicists such as yourself.

And folks who see the bigger picture are well informed by the fact that electricity, nuclear or otherwise, comprises only a fraction of the energy requirements of our energy-intensive lifestyle.

An accessible item on global energy consumption is available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
and provides some global perspective(no doubt you will find an innacuracy or outdated figure, and of course you are always welcome in principle to enter into the wiki editing process).

See also
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/green-power-feasible/story-e6frgcjx-1225810715413 and

For an energy-flow diagram of Australia from a supply-demand economic viewpoint,
see
http://www.orer.gov.au/publications/pubs/energy-flows-2006-07.pdf
Direct solar energy input is not included, and so direct solar space and water heating seem to fall off the diagram. I'm hoping they fix that up next time.

Meanwhile, you are welcome to stay focused on those fatal errors only you see most clearly and understand best.

Enjoy your day, Shadow Minister
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 29 July 2010 9:40:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor, you seem lost in the woods.

Now you are trying to throw out red herrings as your arguments falter. Electricity generation in Aus is responsible for >40% of human generated GHGs, and while there are lots of other issues, this was not the intention of the thread.

Initial efforts such as efficiency increases may be cheaper than nuclear, they all suffer from diminishing returns and a lack of an alternative base load supply.

Given that energy demand is increasing at about 3% per annum, we are looking at having emissions at greater than 150% of 1990 levels by 2020. As long as the government pretends to be doing something with renewables etc, the prognosis is unlikely to change.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 29 July 2010 10:29:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The overall picture is of energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction by more economic and environmentally sustainable means than building radioactive terrorist targets and diplomatic liabilities, at the taxpayer's expense and risk.

I advise Shadow Minister and others who are interested in a transition toward a sustainable future, given our energy-intensive lifestyles and democratic-capitalistic expectations, to look carefully into Amory Lovins' arguments.

Lovins has repeatedly updated and refined his work over the past 30 years and more, and has been delivering solid results in terms of increasing the efficient use of coal, petroleum products and electricity generation and use. Nuclear electricity gets short shrift.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 29 July 2010 1:32:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM

I did a Google search on the Kendall Power Station as you suggested. I thought from your post that it was nuclear, but it is coal fired and so not really relevant to your point that geothermal uses three times as much water as geothermal. Incidentally, the Johannesburg Electricity Department website refers to the "station's six steam turbines". I the assume that the steam comes from water, so there must be some water usage.

I don't agree that hot dry rocks are only option, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Posted by Loxton, Thursday, 29 July 2010 5:17:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My error - it should read three times as much water as nuclear".
Posted by Loxton, Thursday, 29 July 2010 5:36:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loxton,

It is clear from your posts that you have very little idea of how electrical power is generated.

Nearly all electrical power (PV solar excluded) involves spinning a turbine. For converting heat to power, the most effective way is to convert the heat to high temperature high pressure steam and use it to spin the turbine. The low pressure steam is then condensed releasing a portion of the heat energy, and then returned to the boilers again.

The water generating the steam circles in a loop, so the ongoing consumption is relatively small. The large consumption is used in expelling the heat.

This applies to hot rocks, nuclear, coal etc.

Kendal uses coal, but due to the shortage of water, uses air cooling instead of the water based cooling towers. These are vastly more costly.

These are proposed for the hot rocks to reduce the water consumption, but can also be use for nuclear, or any other system when water is not available.

The hot rocks also loses water into the granite, etc.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 30 July 2010 12:30:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Au contraire, I understand perfectly well how electricity is generated. Moreover, I understand that nuclear power stations use a lot of water. This paper talks water use by nuclear power stations http://www.efmr.org/files/07rn12.pdf and concludes that "Per megawatt existing nuclear power stations use and consume more water than power stations using other fuel sources. Depending on the cooling technology utilised, the water requirements for a nuclear power station can vary between 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations."

I have also followed up on your stuff about air-cooled nuclear power stations and found Pebble Bed reactors which are gas coooled. However, there don't seem to be any that are actually operational.

I repeat that hot dry rocks are not the only geothermal option for Australia, in my opinion, but taking hot dry rocks for a moment. they equally do not have to use water. Other fluids are feasible including CO2 of all things. If they use water, it can be condensed and re-used which is waht they are doing with Geodynamics test hole and how it can operate in the middle of the desert.

As I said, I find it difficult to beleive that geothermal will use three times as much water as nuclear, but I am willing to be proved wrong.
Posted by Loxton, Friday, 30 July 2010 4:12:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loxton,

I am a power engineer and have built several generation systems.

In all steam cycles cooling is required to condense the steam. The ratio between heat expelled and heat converted to electricity is defined by the Carnot limit as follows:

Efficiency = (Ts-Tc)/Ts

Where Ts is the steam temperature, Tc is the condensing temperature in degrees Kelvin.

Ts is determined by the heat source and the safety limits of the boiler.

For modern coal fired boilers 550C (or 823K) the max efficiency is 58%.

For existing nuclear reactors, safety limits are stricter, and Ts is about 450C For this the max efficiency is about 52%

While no system gets near the carnot efficiency, Modern coal fired boiler systems get a thermal efficiency in the order of 35% and nuclear 30%.

Putting this simply Nuclear power stations need to expel about 20% more heat per unit of power generated. (for older test reactors running at very low temperatures this can get up to 80%)

Water cooling is by far the cheapest and most effective. However, where fresh water is an issue, sea water, or through flow can be used.

In extreme circumstances (such as Kendal), air cooling can be used.

Considering that 99% of all power stations use water for cooling, this is where the figures come from.

For geothermal, the Ts is in the order of 250C giving a max efficiency of 33% and a real thermal efficiency of about a third of of a coal system.

Considering that modern nukes with modern metallurgy run at temperatures in excess of 500C, their thermal efficiency is much improved.

Geodynamics has tried to alleviate the water usage by using air cooled systems, unfortunately hot rocks also has the problem of water loss into the granite, which consumes fresh water.

While nukes can be built at the sea and consume no fresh water, (and with condensation towers generate a vast supply of fresh water from sea water) Hot rocks can not.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 31 July 2010 6:19:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy